Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

C6 starting price announced

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 24, 2003 | 11:57 PM
  #16  
Antz97ZNJ's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
From: Browns Mills, New Jersey
Thats not bad at all, man that c6 is gonna look sharp on the street
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 12:03 AM
  #17  
morb|d's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,440
From: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
i wouldn't put much credit to that article, it also states the C6 will go on with the same 350hp base engine, which one can say is "close" to the 400hp we are expecting...

Last edited by morb|d; Nov 25, 2003 at 12:07 AM.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 12:49 AM
  #18  
Threxx's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
Originally posted by morb|d
i wouldn't put much credit to that article, it also states the C6 will go on with the same 350hp base engine, which one can say is "close" to the 400hp we are expecting...
Reread... it says no such thing.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 11:05 AM
  #19  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Interestingly, it is $44000 USD in the States. If you do the conversion it translates to roughly $58000 CDN. But here it is MSRP of $69,000!

Won't it be much profitable to cross the border, buy the car there (from a friend/relative) and bring it here? That's a savings of $10,000 plus taxes (15% here in Ontario).

Or, in retrospect, $69000 here translates into 52,550.57 USD. Not bad, eh?

Last edited by muckz; Nov 25, 2003 at 11:10 AM.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 12:34 PM
  #20  
JEDCamino's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 857
From: Murfreesboro, TN
Not bad. Still several dozen thousand more than I could afford, but oh well.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 12:56 PM
  #21  
redzed's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by 1990 Turbo Grand Prix
I still wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Until they're in my showroom, NOTHING is official.
A far bigger question is what will the final specifications be? Will your $44K Corvette targa be the performance equivilent of the current Z06? What exactly comes as standard?

It should be obvious that GM saved a buck or two by deleting the pop-up headlights, but it makes me wonder what other clever "decontenting" took place?
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 01:00 PM
  #22  
Darth Xed's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by redzed
A far bigger question is what will the final specifications be? Will your $44K Corvette targa be the performance equivilent of the current Z06? What exactly comes as standard?

It should be obvious that GM saved a buck or two by deleting the pop-up headlights, but it makes me wonder what other clever "decontenting" took place?

Look, I've probably been the most vocal here against losing the concealed headlamps... but I would hardly call it "decontenting"... they went in a different styling direction.

The 1997 C5 had, what?, 30% (or something like that) fewer parts than the 1996 C4... would you call the C5 "decontented?"
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 01:32 PM
  #23  
redzed's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by Darth Xed
Look, I've probably been the most vocal here against losing the concealed headlamps... but I would hardly call it "decontenting"... they went in a different styling direction.

The 1997 C5 had, what?, 30% (or something like that) fewer parts than the 1996 C4... would you call the C5 "decontented?"
Substituting clear plastic for the complexity of concealed headlamps is a definite savings in cost and weight. Originally it was a way of hiding some boring sealed beams, but most current designs like to show off those complex modern projectors. Still, the change makes the car cheaper to build - and alot more ordinary.

The C4 vs. C5 parts count issue isn't a very fair comparison. Between hydroforming for frame components and the new-for-'97 LS-1, the C5 was always going to have lower parts count than its predecessor. However, deleting features like the clam-shell hood certainly helped in terms of cost.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 01:54 PM
  #24  
Darth Xed's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by redzed
Substituting clear plastic for the complexity of concealed headlamps is a definite savings in cost and weight. Originally it was a way of hiding some boring sealed beams, but most current designs like to show off those complex modern projectors. Still, the change makes the car cheaper to build - and alot more ordinary.

The C4 vs. C5 parts count issue isn't a very fair comparison. Between hydroforming for frame components and the new-for-'97 LS-1, the C5 was always going to have lower parts count than its predecessor. However, deleting features like the clam-shell hood certainly helped in terms of cost.
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying here.... however, "cheaper to build" does not have to equal "decontented".
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 02:27 PM
  #25  
PacerX's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
Originally posted by Darth Xed
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying here.... however, "cheaper to build" does not have to equal "decontented".
1) Amen. I grant thee a cookie.

2) It's lighter. Lighter can mean less material weight = less cost. Neat how that works, huh?

3) Decontented my a$$.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 02:27 PM
  #26  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by Darth Xed
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying here.... however, "cheaper to build" does not have to equal "decontented".
Besides, those lights on the C6 are new projector-type HID lights.

Hardly a "decontented" replacement.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 04:18 PM
  #27  
muckz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally posted by PacerX

2) It's lighter. Lighter can mean less material weight = less cost. Neat how that works, huh?
can but not necessarily does. Gold vs. steel. Neat how that works? You bet!
These headlights are HID, so they are not as cheap as may seem.

I feel you have some rough price figures?
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 04:23 PM
  #28  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by muckz
can but not necessarily does. Gold vs. steel. Neat how that works? You bet!
These headlights are HID, so they are not as cheap as may seem.
Steel is less dense than Gold (steel is lighter)

Steel vs. Aluminum would have been a better analogy.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 05:55 PM
  #29  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Originally posted by redzed
However, deleting features like the clam-shell hood certainly helped in terms of cost.
guionM covered the HID headlights for C6, and as for losing the clam-shell hood...I think overall it was a good move. Pieces align better from the factory, personally I thought access to everything under the hood was a bigger PITA, and perhaps the biggest reason why Chevy ditched it was insurance claims. Those hoods were REDICULOUSLY expensive to replace.
Old Nov 25, 2003 | 06:33 PM
  #30  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by Z28Wilson
perhaps the biggest reason why Chevy ditched it was insurance claims. Those hoods were REDICULOUSLY expensive to replace.
Same with the old Viper hoods, the hood alone was something like $11,000 to replace.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.